What do you think?
Rate this book
Machiavelli and Us
The text of Althusser's lecture course on Machiavelli, originally delivered at the Ecole normale superieure in 1972.
"We do not publish our own drafts, that is, our own mistakes, but we do sometimes publish other people's," Louis Althusser once observed of Marx's early writings. Among his own posthumously released drafts, one, at least, is incontestably neither mistake nor out-take: the text of his lecture course on Machiavelli, originally delivered at the Ecole Normale Superieure in 1972, intermittently revised up to the mid-1980s, and carefully prepared for publication after his death in 1990.
Though only appearing as an occasional reference in the Marxist philosopher's oeuvre, Machiavelli was an unseen constant presence. For together with Spinoza and Marx, Machiavelli was a veritable Althusserian passion. Machiavelli and Us reveals why, and will be welcomed for the light it sheds on the richly complex thought of its author.
"We do not publish our own drafts, that is, our own mistakes, but we do sometimes publish other people's," Louis Althusser once observed of Marx's early writings. Among his own posthumously released drafts, one, at least, is incontestably neither mistake nor out-take: the text of his lecture course on Machiavelli, originally delivered at the Ecole Normale Superieure in 1972, intermittently revised up to the mid-1980s, and carefully prepared for publication after his death in 1990.
Though only appearing as an occasional reference in the Marxist philosopher's oeuvre, Machiavelli was an unseen constant presence. For together with Spinoza and Marx, Machiavelli was a veritable Althusserian passion. Machiavelli and Us reveals why, and will be welcomed for the light it sheds on the richly complex thought of its author.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
11 people are currently reading
673 people want to read
About the author
Louis Althusser
182 books517 followersLouis Pierre Althusser (1918–1990) was one of the most influential Marxist philosophers of the 20th Century. As they seemed to offer a renewal of Marxist thought as well as to render Marxism philosophically respectable, the claims he advanced in the 1960s about Marxist philosophy were discussed and debated worldwide. Due to apparent reversals in his theoretical positions, to the ill-fated facts of his life, and to the historical fortunes of Marxism in the late twentieth century, this intense interest in Althusser's reading of Marx did not survive the 1970s. Despite the comparative indifference shown to his work as a whole after these events, the theory of ideology Althusser developed within it has been broadly deployed in the social sciences and humanities and has provided a foundation for much “post-Marxist” philosophy. In addition, aspects of Althusser's project have served as inspiration for Analytic Marxism as well as for Critical Realism. Though this influence is not always explicit, Althusser's work and that of his students continues to inform the research programs of literary studies, political philosophy, history, economics, and sociology. In addition, his autobiography has been subject to much critical attention over the last decade. At present, Althusser's philosophy as a whole is undergoing a critical reevaluation by scholars who have benefited from the anthologization of hard-to-find and previously unpublished texts and who have begun to engage with the great mass of writings that remain in his archives.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 16, 2014
This short book is an excellent production by the French Structural Marxist Louis Althusser. Written in a cool, clear style, Althusser presents a picture of Machiavelli in contradiction to the two major streams of interpretation - though, by his own admission, it is not strictly an interpretation. The work is not especially dense and gives a good outline of The Prince and the Discourses. For anyone looking for an introduction to Machiavelli's work, and more loosely an introduction to Marxist politics, one need look no further. That said, the last essay is more or less a restatement of the first 120 pages, and can be skipped without losing much of the content.
Althusser's central thesis is that 'Machiavelli’s New Prince is thus a specific political form charged with executing the historical demands ‘on the agenda’: the constitution of a nation' (p. 13). He contends that Machiavelli is neither a Monarchist, apologist for tyranny nor a closet republican. Instead, Machiavelli is a philosopher of the nation-state, and The Prince 'is the formulation of a concrete political problem' (p. 16), a problem only a strong ruler can solve. But that would not capture the nuance of Althusser's argument.
The important point comes from Althusser's own political leanings. Althusser was a Marxist who drew heavily from Gramsci, and as a result this book is heavy on Gramscian formulations and positions. Following Gramsci, Althusser argues that Machiavelli 'addresses the Prince with desperation, [and] does so from the viewpoint of the people' (p. 25). This is perhaps the most interesting part of Althusser's account. He further suggests that Machiavelli is a 'theorist of the sovereign power of one man' and 'is the most radical enemy of every tyranny' (p. 25). Rather than being a closet republican and The Prince a satire, this book contends that Machiavelli was concerned with a concrete unity of the popular national state through the Prince and from the viewpoint of the people - a synthesis of the two viewpoints of Monarchist and Republican.
Althusser does note the contradictory nature of a Prince of the people, and the issue of being '[m]oral as often possible, immoral when the political result dictates it, but always out of virtu: moral by virtu, immoral by virtu' (p. 93). However, even this formulation is in response to Machiavelli's political crisis. For Althusser, virtu 'exclusively designates the exceptional political ability and intellectual power of the Prince' (p. 51). This means that it is not morality that is important; instead it is the achievement of a concrete political aim and the nullification of class struggle through the hegemony (equal parts co-operation and coercion) of the Prince that is important and Machiavelli's contribution.
Also worth noting is one of Althusser's closing formulation:
'The implication is obvious: to achieve his national and popular goals, the Prince must start out by respecting the people’s ideology, even – especially – if he wants to transform it. He must take care that every political act, each form of political practice, intervenes and resonates as a matter of fact in the element of this ideology. He must therefore take charge of it, accept responsibility for the ideological effects of his own political practice, anticipate them, and inscribe them in it. And since the Prince is literally the public face of the state, he must take care that the people’s representation of his figure is inscribed in popular ideology, so as to produce effects beneficial to his politics' (p. 97).
Althusser's robust conception of ideology and hegemony make for this interesting interpretation of the Prince's role in politics. It is also a clear statement of the pragmatic aims of Machiavelli's ouvre. Althusser's popular position shines through most clearly in this statement, with Machiavelli's work no longer being a tyranny or satire, but instead a popular government of the People in the name of the People - the suppression of the class struggle through the Prince's person. The political leader is responsible and accountable to the people, and his own person inscribed in popular discourse. This somewhat negates the cold cruelty and ends-justify-the-means that is often ascribed to Machiavelli generally and The Prince specifically.
This conclusion is perhaps a pragmatic concession, but definitely an important one. The gem that is present in this book flows from the above quotiations - that of the popular prince as responsible to people as the person of the national State. A much more fascinating interpretation of a political theorist than is offered in the philosophical historiography of Machiavelli, this book is well worth reading and certainly a must read for anyone interested in political philosophy in general and Machiavelli's contribution to philosophy specifically.
Althusser's central thesis is that 'Machiavelli’s New Prince is thus a specific political form charged with executing the historical demands ‘on the agenda’: the constitution of a nation' (p. 13). He contends that Machiavelli is neither a Monarchist, apologist for tyranny nor a closet republican. Instead, Machiavelli is a philosopher of the nation-state, and The Prince 'is the formulation of a concrete political problem' (p. 16), a problem only a strong ruler can solve. But that would not capture the nuance of Althusser's argument.
The important point comes from Althusser's own political leanings. Althusser was a Marxist who drew heavily from Gramsci, and as a result this book is heavy on Gramscian formulations and positions. Following Gramsci, Althusser argues that Machiavelli 'addresses the Prince with desperation, [and] does so from the viewpoint of the people' (p. 25). This is perhaps the most interesting part of Althusser's account. He further suggests that Machiavelli is a 'theorist of the sovereign power of one man' and 'is the most radical enemy of every tyranny' (p. 25). Rather than being a closet republican and The Prince a satire, this book contends that Machiavelli was concerned with a concrete unity of the popular national state through the Prince and from the viewpoint of the people - a synthesis of the two viewpoints of Monarchist and Republican.
Althusser does note the contradictory nature of a Prince of the people, and the issue of being '[m]oral as often possible, immoral when the political result dictates it, but always out of virtu: moral by virtu, immoral by virtu' (p. 93). However, even this formulation is in response to Machiavelli's political crisis. For Althusser, virtu 'exclusively designates the exceptional political ability and intellectual power of the Prince' (p. 51). This means that it is not morality that is important; instead it is the achievement of a concrete political aim and the nullification of class struggle through the hegemony (equal parts co-operation and coercion) of the Prince that is important and Machiavelli's contribution.
Also worth noting is one of Althusser's closing formulation:
'The implication is obvious: to achieve his national and popular goals, the Prince must start out by respecting the people’s ideology, even – especially – if he wants to transform it. He must take care that every political act, each form of political practice, intervenes and resonates as a matter of fact in the element of this ideology. He must therefore take charge of it, accept responsibility for the ideological effects of his own political practice, anticipate them, and inscribe them in it. And since the Prince is literally the public face of the state, he must take care that the people’s representation of his figure is inscribed in popular ideology, so as to produce effects beneficial to his politics' (p. 97).
Althusser's robust conception of ideology and hegemony make for this interesting interpretation of the Prince's role in politics. It is also a clear statement of the pragmatic aims of Machiavelli's ouvre. Althusser's popular position shines through most clearly in this statement, with Machiavelli's work no longer being a tyranny or satire, but instead a popular government of the People in the name of the People - the suppression of the class struggle through the Prince's person. The political leader is responsible and accountable to the people, and his own person inscribed in popular discourse. This somewhat negates the cold cruelty and ends-justify-the-means that is often ascribed to Machiavelli generally and The Prince specifically.
This conclusion is perhaps a pragmatic concession, but definitely an important one. The gem that is present in this book flows from the above quotiations - that of the popular prince as responsible to people as the person of the national State. A much more fascinating interpretation of a political theorist than is offered in the philosophical historiography of Machiavelli, this book is well worth reading and certainly a must read for anyone interested in political philosophy in general and Machiavelli's contribution to philosophy specifically.
September 9, 2020
Friendship ENDED with Nietzsche. Machiavelli is my best friend
August 10, 2020
One gets, as always, the subtle suggestion that even in this deliberate appropriation and 'invention' , that is common to Althusser, of Machiavelli, that we are within the limits of more than just The Prince and Discourses. Following from his contributions in Reading Capital and The Underground Current, Machiavelli and Us is more of an expansion of aleatory materialism, a concept that was cut short by Althusser's demise as well as almost a reconciliation with Gramsci. But as always, we are encouraged to read as a dispositif - much in the same way as Niccolo is forced into monarchism and republicanism, Louis is likely playing with the suggestion that Gramsci in many ways fails to capture Machiavelli whilst also being one of the few to truly constitute his political importance. The end of the appendix is a truly poignant paragraph that reveals the earnestness behind this work, and sadly serves as a reminder of Althusser's haunted persona, his impending fate and a contradictory but powerful thinker.
January 15, 2024
"I would argue that (...) Machiavelli responds rather in the same way to the edifying discourse maintained by the philosophers of the natural law about the history of the state. I would go as far as to suggest that Machiavelli is perhaps one of the few witnesses to what I shall call 'primitive political accumulation', one of the few theoreticians of the beginnings of the national state. Instead of saying that the state is born of law and nature, he tells us how a state has to be born if it is to last and to be strong enough to become the state of a nation. He does not speak the language of law, he speaks the language of armed force indespensible to the consitution of any state, he speaks the language of the necessary cruelty of the beginnings of the state, he speaks the language of politics without religion that has to make use of religion at all costs, of a politics that has to be moral but has to be able not to be moral, of a politics that has to reject hatred but inspire fear, he speaks the language of the struggle between classes, and as for rights, laws and morality, he puts them in their proper, subordinate place. When we read him, however informed we may be about the violences of history, something in him grips us: a man who, even before all the ideologists blocked out reality with their stories, was capable not of >living< or >tolerating<, but of >thinking< the violence of the birth throes of the state." (p.125).
November 23, 2025
Quan una llegeix a Maquiavel li passa que sent aquella indiferència pròpia del pas dels segles, el tedi propi de l’aversió al discurs bel·licista o d’una teoria política eminentment doble, subreptíciament violenta. L’atribueix, el tanca, en un moment històric determinat. Per contra, i amb Althusser —junt amb el llibre més relaxat de Quentin Skinner— una arriba a copsar que Maquiavel ens està informant, de manera explícita, del naixement del que més tard serà anomenada la raó d’Estat, l’Estat pensant-se a sí mateix, prenent com a meta la seva pròpia supervivència. I és que la teorització de Maquiavel ens posa sempre en un dilema: és el seu Príncep realment una sèrie de consells per a un futur conquistador, per al proper tirà? O és un avís per al poble, està prevenint al poble de la forma del tirà? Resulta, en qualsevol cas, molt estimulant habitar aquest espai d’indecisió, en què un escrit pot ser apropiat com a màquina de guerra sigui pel cantó de la revolució, sigui pel cantó de la voluntat tirànica. Diria, en aquest punt, que com a fundador de la realpolitik, d’una política eminentment materialista, com a Staatsman tal i com el qualificaria Hegel, la lectura de Maquiavel —una bona lectura de Maquiavel— resulta essencial per a comprendre el moviment centrípet de creació d’Estats-nació durant l’Edat Mitjana tardana, i amb què s’inicia la Modernitat. En definitiva, Maquiavel és el teòric de la transició a nivell polític entre el mode de producció feudal i el mode de producció capitalista, i podem conservar d’ell, amb felicitat, finalment la necessària subsumpció de tota política estatal —com a mínim en la seva dimensió aparent— a la voluntat del poble, al seu protomaterialisme històric. Excels aquest llibre.
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016En un extraordinario texto escrito en su período de reclusión, Louis Althusser lee a Maquiavelo y hace la muy razonable pregunta sobre si El Príncipe debe ser considerado un manifiesto político revolucionario. A fin de aplicarse a esta cuestión, Althusser intenta primero definir la “forma manifiesto” en tanto género específico de texto, comparando las características de El Príncipe con aquellas del manifiesto político paradigmático, el Manifiesto del Partido Comunista de Marx y Engels. Halla entre estos dos documentos parecidos estructurales innegables. En ambos textos la forma del argumento consiste en “un aparato completamente específico [dispositif] que establece relaciones particulares entre el discurso y su‟objeto‟ y entre el discurso y su „sujeto‟ “ (p. 55). En cada caso el discurso político nace de la relación productiva entre el sujeto y el objeto, del hecho de que esta relación es ella misma el verdadero punto de vista de la res gestae, una acción colectiva auto-constituyente apuntada a su objetivo. En suma, claramente por fuera de la tradición de la ciencia política (tanto en su forma clásica, que era realmente el análisis de las formas de gobierno, o en su forma contemporánea, que apunta a una ciencia de la administración), los manifiestos de Maquiavelo y Marx-Engels definen lo político como los movimientos de la multitud, y definen su objetivo como la auto-producción del sujeto. Aquí tenemos una teleología materialista.
Pese a esa importante similitud, continúa Althusser, las diferencias entre los dos manifiestos son significativas. La primera diferencia consiste en el hecho que, mientras en el texto de Marx-Engels el sujeto que define el punto de vista del texto (el moderno proletariado) y el objeto (el partido comunista y el comunismo) son concebidos como co-presentes de tal modo que la creciente organización del primero conlleva directamente la creación del segundo, en el proyecto de Maquiavelo hay una distancia ineluctable entre el sujeto (la multitud) y el objeto (el Príncipe y el Estado libre). Esta distancia llevó a que Maquiavelo buscara en El Príncipe una aparato democrático capaz de unir sujeto con objeto. En otras palabras, mientras el manifiesto de Marx-Engels traza una causalidad lineal y necesaria, el texto de Maquiavelo describe en realidad un proyecto y una utopía. Althusser reconoce finalmente que ambos textos traen efectivamente la propuesta teórica al nivel de la praxis; ambos asumen al presente como vacío para el futuro, “vide pour le futur” (p. 62), y en este espacio abierto establecen un acto inmanente del sujeto que constituye una nueva posición del ser.
Imperio Pág.53-54
Pese a esa importante similitud, continúa Althusser, las diferencias entre los dos manifiestos son significativas. La primera diferencia consiste en el hecho que, mientras en el texto de Marx-Engels el sujeto que define el punto de vista del texto (el moderno proletariado) y el objeto (el partido comunista y el comunismo) son concebidos como co-presentes de tal modo que la creciente organización del primero conlleva directamente la creación del segundo, en el proyecto de Maquiavelo hay una distancia ineluctable entre el sujeto (la multitud) y el objeto (el Príncipe y el Estado libre). Esta distancia llevó a que Maquiavelo buscara en El Príncipe una aparato democrático capaz de unir sujeto con objeto. En otras palabras, mientras el manifiesto de Marx-Engels traza una causalidad lineal y necesaria, el texto de Maquiavelo describe en realidad un proyecto y una utopía. Althusser reconoce finalmente que ambos textos traen efectivamente la propuesta teórica al nivel de la praxis; ambos asumen al presente como vacío para el futuro, “vide pour le futur” (p. 62), y en este espacio abierto establecen un acto inmanente del sujeto que constituye una nueva posición del ser.
Imperio Pág.53-54
November 27, 2020
Balibar argues that Althusser's later writings do not constitute a rejection, but a careful deconstruction of his early work. Nowhere is this more evident than in this book.
The main thesis, which is built from the beginning and does not take a clear shape until the very end, is that Machiavelli is one of the greatest, if not the greatest materialist philosopher in history. Throughout the book, Althusser rejects the Gramscian charge of utopianism and draws a picture of a "fragmented" philosophy, which we can reason to be the only possible materialist philosophy in charge of a political objective. Of note are Althusser's handling of spatial metaphors and his foreshadowing of the theoretical dispositive.
Overall, a brilliant, incisive and powerful exposition of that great innovator, Machiavelli.
The main thesis, which is built from the beginning and does not take a clear shape until the very end, is that Machiavelli is one of the greatest, if not the greatest materialist philosopher in history. Throughout the book, Althusser rejects the Gramscian charge of utopianism and draws a picture of a "fragmented" philosophy, which we can reason to be the only possible materialist philosophy in charge of a political objective. Of note are Althusser's handling of spatial metaphors and his foreshadowing of the theoretical dispositive.
Overall, a brilliant, incisive and powerful exposition of that great innovator, Machiavelli.
November 29, 2022
You obtain a nagging impression that we are constrained by more than just The Prince and Discourses even in this conscious appropriation and "creation" of Machiavelli that is typical of Althusser. 'Machiavelli and Us' builds on his contributions to 'Reading Capital' and is more of an extension of aleatory materialism, a movement that was stopped in its tracks by the death of Althusser, as well as an almost-reconciliation with Gramsci. Although he admits it is not precisely an interpretation, Althusser gives a picture of Machiavelli that is in opposition to the two main streams of interpretation in his cool, clear writing. The Prince and the Discourses are well-outlined in the text, which is not overly dense. There is no need to explore further for anyone looking for an introduction to Machiavelli's writings or, more loosely speaking, an introduction to Marxist politics.
August 14, 2014
As someone who loves Machiavelli and all his works I found this to be the best companion work I could ask for. Althusser breaks down the way some of the most important Machiavelli readers have interpreted him while providing a new and thoughtful way of looking at the first Modern man.
I am sure I would use portions of this book if I ever teach a section on Machiavelli or even the history of dissent.
I am sure I would use portions of this book if I ever teach a section on Machiavelli or even the history of dissent.
January 29, 2019
Apart from its theoretical significance and Althusser's particular approach to Machiavelli (which, I prefer to keep to myself), this is one of the most rigorous and formally robust pieces of political theory I have read in long time. It is an absolute joy to journey into Althusser's reconstruction of Machiavelli's "new modes and orders."
January 21, 2023
Absolutely excellent text on Machiavelli that both contextualizes his insights and gives voice to his profound uniqueness as a political thinker. It also engages with him in light of the later Marxist tradition and as a result has many useful things to say on its own.
March 29, 2010
Exactly what you'd expect a book by Althusser to say about Machiavelli. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm not sure.
February 20, 2024
An excellent study of Machiavelli tarnished by Althusser’s rampant vanguardism. Althusser was a masterful writer and scholar, though. While I disagree with his practical takeaways - here, one would do better to read Merleau-Ponty or Lefort on Machiavelli - the quality of the writing and the insight are powerful.
August 14, 2020
What are the conditions of possibility of the change in total structure and order of sociality (= the order/law of relationality in a society), and not just of the form of governing and/or ideology, and what kind of Subject does this change demand?
June 11, 2025
کتاب ترجمهی خوبی دارد (ترجمهی مصطلحات ماکیاوولی لاجرم همیشه محل اختلاف است) و بهرهای ازآن به کار میآید اگر خواننده بداند دنبال چیست و نه برای فهم ماکیاوولی سراغ کتاب آمده باشد؛ برای نویسنده هم آن «ما» نقطه عزیمت است.
November 27, 2025
This review might be surprising given my low opinion of Reading Capital, but I really liked this book.
It was short, and did a good job of summarizing Machiavelli's thought - and its discussion of others' interpretation of him, brief as it was, was quite fun. I think that in general Althusser became a much better writer over his lifetime, with his later works being much more coherent and argumentative - whereas Reading Capital was a pretty rambly.
That said, I don't really see anything to do with "Us" - this work does not connect to today in any meaningful way, but, that's not why i read it so it didn't effect the rating. Likewise, I find the whole concept of aleatory materialism - as in, Althusser specificic concept, not the idea of randomness as a whole - to be ridiculous, but it didn't negatively effect this work so, again, I still liked it.
It was short, and did a good job of summarizing Machiavelli's thought - and its discussion of others' interpretation of him, brief as it was, was quite fun. I think that in general Althusser became a much better writer over his lifetime, with his later works being much more coherent and argumentative - whereas Reading Capital was a pretty rambly.
That said, I don't really see anything to do with "Us" - this work does not connect to today in any meaningful way, but, that's not why i read it so it didn't effect the rating. Likewise, I find the whole concept of aleatory materialism - as in, Althusser specificic concept, not the idea of randomness as a whole - to be ridiculous, but it didn't negatively effect this work so, again, I still liked it.
March 15, 2021
An intriguing reading of Machiavelli through Gramsci as the first theoretician of the foundations of the nation state and their practice.
February 4, 2024
Postura de Althusser sobre el Maquiavelo Aleatorio
March 1, 2023
Excited to have finally laid my hands on a paperback version of a very important book by a philosopher, who in Badiou's terms- Badiou was a student of Althusser- was a "subject to truth" who I think to be my intellectual mentor even though he died before I was even born.
March 3, 2022
No one, under any circumstances, should have to read this book in approximately 30 hours because they went on a trip to Prague and now they have an essay due in less hours than it's healthy to produce it. Great book nonentheless.
Read
July 15, 2009I'm convinced Althusser didn't mention Machiavelli more frequently only because the similarities are so patent. Hard to read The Prince's statements on the people and the spectacle of power, and not think of Althusser's writings on the production of the subject.
July 29, 2017
Great reading of Machiavelli! A must-read!
January 27, 2016
Bel volume, interessante, completo e con una tesi di fondo molto convincente, ovvero l'impegno di Machiavelli verso la creazione di un progetto politico particolare: l'unità d'Italia.
May 2, 2017
Unsurprisingly, obtuse French Marxist criticism and parenting a 2 year old do not mix.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews